UMBRELLAS- Anyone heard of AML ?

[Vallah]

That's fine Vallah and I have no issue with it just as long as the contractors know the risks that they are taking which was the point of my original post - most of those contractors who used the Montpelier scheme were told they were doing nothing illegal at the time but it has not stopped HMR&C applying restrospective legislation years down the line which has resulted in huge financial and emotional trauma for those involved.

I agree with you that there are unscrupulous companies in the umbrella world as well and I have been just as vocal when some of them offer 85% take home 'guaranteed' without knowing the contractors circumstances or explaining how this amazing return can be achieved in clear and concise detail.

There's obviously a whole amount of information on here regarding BN66 and Montpelier, so I won't go into that in too much detail, save to say that the retrospective element (which I thoroughly disagree with) came about because while the arrangment Montpelier used was itself perfectly legal, it used the DTR to tax the payment at IOM rates rather than UK rates. (although I'm sure DonkeyRhubarb can correct me if necessary).

Our EBT scheme as I've said taxes all income at prevailing UK rates.

I think overall though, there's plenty of room in the market for all kinds of schemes. I personally don't see the point in using umbrella schemes, but I'm sure that for people who do, you offer a very good service. I can see that you think that EBTs are too risky a venture, but for those that don't we have many thousands of satisfied customers.

[malvolio]

Our EBT scheme as I've said taxes all income at prevailing UK rates.

OK, so how do you define "income"?

I can see that you think that EBTs are too risky a venture, but for those that don't we have many thousands of satisfied customers.

Which we coud perhaps define as "those who haven't been challenged by HMRC yet"??

[TykeMerc]

OK, so how do you define "income"?


Which we coud perhaps define as "those who haven't been challenged by HMRC yet"??

Those are 2 critical points.

"Income" disguised as loans I regard as ludicrously risky as there has to be some type of repayment or write off, if written off there has to be a benefit accrued which is a taxation target.
In my opinion it's not a matter of IF HMRC will get interested, but WHEN. The lovely people at HMRC have already proven they're happy to employ a time machine so these schemes are simply storing up lots of grief for the future.

[ASB]

Those are 2 critical points.

"Income" disguised as loans I regard as ludicrously risky as there has to be some type of repayment or write off, if written off there has to be a benefit accrued which is a taxation target.
In my opinion it's not a matter of IF HMRC will get interested, but WHEN. The lovely people at HMRC have already proven they're happy to employ a time machine so these schemes are simply storing up lots of grief for the future.

HMRC have already got interested. They have been for years, there have been some challenges and whilst there have been a couple of cases lost by HMRC (in that certain loans were not classed as benefits and taxable) the overall impact of these judgements was not actually entirely a vindication of this sort of scheme. There had also been further legislation as to how the contributions were treated on the way into a scheme. Essentially in most cases it became at best deferment.

Further HMRC do not really need a time machine. All users of this sort of scheme are now presumably sitting on what I might choose to describe as accrued benefits. A simple change in the rules now, whilst not being retrospective would effectively be so - in that it may well ascribe a substantial tax charges to loans already taken.

Of course this doesn't make any schemes current or future of themselves illegal. It does mean they may well fail. In general failed avoidance schemes usually work out rather more costly than just paying what was attempted to be avoided.

[holograms]

Hi,

I just want to bumped this thread for anyone doing a search on this off-shore company.

When I first started contracting I was recommended this company by some unscrupulous recruitment agency call 'Redcat solution'. Instead of researching and setting up my own limited company, I took the advise of Redcat solution (some low end recruitment company who probably receive a fee for every gullible contractor that they send to AML) and signed onto AML. I was with AML only for 6 months, where I was assured that I was safe and everything was legal. Anyways, after 6 months with them, I decided just to set up my on LTD company (best decision ever), and leave AML.

Today, I received a £30k tax avoidance payment from the HMRC from when I was with AML 5 years ago.

Don't do it! Avoid all these dodgy tax schemes!

[northernladuk]

We have a whole section of the forum dedicated to these schemes and there are a lot of people in there in your situation. Maybe there is something in there that can help you.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/

BTW you took Redcats ADVICE